On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > In message <20140729225352.go7...@hezmatt.org>, Matt Palmer writes: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:28:53AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: >>> 2. IPv6 is nice (dual stack) but the internet without IPv4 is not a viable >>> thing, perhaps one day, but certainly not today (I really hate clueless >>> people who shout to the hills that IPv6 is the "solution" for today's >>> internet access) >> >> Do you have IPv6 deployed and available to your entire customer base, so >> that those who want to use it can do so? To my way of thinking, CGNAT is >> probably going to be the number one driver of IPv6 adoption amongst the >> broad customer base, *as long as their ISP provides it*. > > Add to that over half your traffic will switch to IPv6 as long as > the customer has a IPv6 capable CPE. That's a lot less logging you > need to do from day 1.
That would be nice, but I’m not 100% convinced that it is true. Though it will be an increasing percentage over time. Definitely a good way of reducing the load on your CGN, with the additional benefit that your network is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. > >>> 3. 99.99% of customers don't notice they are transiting CGNAT, it just >>> works. >> >> More precisely: you don't hear from 99.99% of customers, regardless of >> whether or not they notice problems that are caused by CGNAT. People put up >> with some *really* bad stuff sometimes without mentioning it to their >> service provider. > > Like modems that introduce 2 second queuing delays the moment you > have a upstream transfer like a icloud backup. Buffer @!#$!@#$! > bloat! Among other things. 99.99% of customers don’t now how to isolate the fault of such a thing to their ISP or how to properly complain about it in my experience. For the 0.01% who do, 99% of them don’t know how to get past the ISP’s first-line “let’s reboot your modem and when you call back afterwards, you won’t be my problem any more”. Owen
